Subject: Re: [xsl] document() function and error-handling|
From: Abel Braaksma <abel.online@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:36:28 +0100
Sure, usually I'd reply to the list, but at the point where you're redefining the XmlResolver used in the .NET XSLProcessor instance used for an admittedly fringe case, in order to get around a limitation that the XSLT specification clearly says it defines no control over... isn't that getting a little implementation-specific? My reply to Anthony was more one of curiosity, a tangent that would help me at work in other ways, but not really related to the topic at hand.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't, eh? Although I suppose this is
not so harsh when compared to being reprimanded by the list owner for
*not* following list guidelines. ;)
Cheers, -- Abel Braaksma